I selected the case Stambovsky v. Ackley. The reason I took interest in this case is because its setting is in Nyack, New York, and that is where I grew up as a child and call home. Although I grew up in Nyack I had never heard of this house that is haunted so I thought it would be an intriguing topic to look up and write about. Although I have never heard of this case before, I have heard many stories of places around that area being haunted, some including the school I attended. This case is about the plaintiff Stambovsky wanted to purchase a house in Nyack, New York. The defendant Ackley had previously advertised that the house was haunted by ghosts between 1977 and 1989. Stambovsky had written an article about the house on readers digest and also had the house displayed in a haunted tour. Stambovsky went into the contract but did not know the house was haunted due to the fact that Ackley did not provide that information. Upon learning that the house was haunted, Stambovsky wanted to rescind the contract of sale for the home and have his down payment of $32,500 repaid back to him. …show more content…
And does principle of Caveat Emptor on the buyer protects the seller from all legal liabilities? The answer to the first issue is yes. If the seller knows of a fault or flaw that is likely to not be discovered by the buyer, then the seller has a duty to inform the buyer of the flaws. Withholding such information that is detrimental to the property causes there to be a fault in the contract. Caveat Emptor means that the buyer must perform their due diligence when purchasing an item or service. Caveat Emptor does not protect the seller in this case because simply buy inspecting the house, the buyer cannot know if there are ghosts inhabiting